Racism?

[neon_tiger]

In the last election, it is the first nonwhite president we have had ever in this country. And what do people ask him? "How does it feel to be the first black president?" He deflects the issue of race, but it was brought up by opponents of Barak, his name questioned, trying to link him to Islam and terrorism, etc.

I dislike hearing people in the media refer to Obama as the first black president. He's the first mixed race president and shouldn't just be labeled just black, in my opinion. I'm half black, half white and when someone refers to me as simply white or black, it's infuriating. Sure Barack is black, but why should his white side be totally overshadowed. He's equally both and should have a proper lable. It's just ridiculously annoying to me. I think his biracial ethnicity should be the focus more than him being 'black' as it shows a unity of race and represents our diverse nation.

I might be overeacting to this though; being too often mistaken for being only white and the accompanying flak.

 

[cantata]

Thinking back, when I was the sole white person on the night crew at Arby's, no one really thought about whether they were offending me with the comments that got made about white people all the time. Shoot, my manager used to joke that he was gonna rob every white person that came through the drive thru because they must be loaded. There was more...but had I reported it, I can almost imagine the laughter. No one would've cared if a little white chick was offended.

Of course, I wasn't offended because I'm not a racial person, but think about the reverse situation...would it have been the same way?

If you don’t get why there is a difference between this situation and the hypothetical opposite, I think you will never get it. Is there a long and deeply painful history in America of violence and discrimination by black people against white people? No. So there is no double standard.

Check your privilege.

It is because THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE QUOTAS ARE FILLED AND WHITE PEOPLE ARE DISENFRANCHISED.

And i tis not just in America.

It's in south Africa.

And it's not just with white people,

it is in India with Brahmans and in Malaysia with the Chinese and Malay question.

It is natural and widespread that the "empowered race" often has to struggle and get more credentials and qualifications to get the same job as a black.

Is that right, Beanie Boy?

Yes, it is absolutely right (when it happens at all; it is rarer than you like to fantasize), because the playing field is not level to begin with.

 

[DeathMagus]

Yes, it is absolutely right (when it happens at all; it is rarer than you like to fantasize), because the playing field is not level to begin with.

No. When a playing field is not level, the proper thing to do is level the playing field, not invoke a series of restrictions and requirements to approximate the same.

 

[TheOtherHockeyMom]

No. When a playing field is not level, the proper thing to do is level the playing field, not invoke a series of restrictions and requirements to approximate the same.

So, outside of quotas, restrictions, regulations, et al, how do you truly level the playing field?

 

[cantata]

No. When a playing field is not level, the proper thing to do is level the playing field, not invoke a series of restrictions and requirements to approximate the same.

Yeah, well good luck with that.

Sucks to be all the people who grew up with the wobbly playing field, eh?

 

[DeathMagus]

So, outside of quotas, restrictions, regulations, et al, how do you truly level the playing field?

Education. Time. Both are unfortunately long-term solutions, but it leads to a truer leveling than instituting anti-white racist policies to counteract the pro-white racist tendencies already in place. Such action creates division and bitterness, which serves to prolong the imbalance.

Yeah, well good luck with that.

Sucks to be all the people who grew up with the wobbly playing field, eh?

Yes it does.

 

[cantata]

Education. Time. Both are unfortunately long-term solutions, but it leads to a truer leveling than instituting anti-white racist policies to counteract the pro-white racist tendencies already in place. Such action creates division and bitterness, which serves to prolong the imbalance.

Yes it does.

Can you not see how tremendously unfair that is to people who have grown up with the wobbly playing field, and, frankly, those who are growing up with it right now and will grow up with it for years hence? Have you any idea exactly how much misogyny/racism/classism/heteronormativity/ableism/cisgenderism/ageism &c. needs to be overcome before the playing field is level? We are talking decades—maybe centuries—of work. And in the meantime, everyone just has to put up with it?

So the benefits of someone’s white male heterosexual middle-class cisgendered under-50 able-bodied privilege are reduced a little? My heart bleeds, it really does.

 

[DeathMagus]

Can you not see how tremendously unfair that is to people who have grown up with the wobbly playing field, and, frankly, those who are growing up with it right now and will grow up with it for years hence? Have you any idea exactly how much misogyny/racism/classism/heteronormativity/ableism/cisgenderism/ageism &c. needs to be overcome before the playing field is level? We are talking decades—maybe centuries—of work. And in the meantime, everyone just has to put up with it?

So the benefits of someone’s white male heterosexual middle-class cisgendered under-50 able-bodied privilege are reduced a little? My heart bleeds, it really does.

A couple of points:

1. Discrimination breeds resentment. All one is accomplishing is a faux-equality, while fostering resentment between whites and non-whites. That's hardly productive, though it looks attractive because it's a short-term "solution."
2. Are you really arguing that the proper response to discrimination is an eye for an eye?
3. Who shall we trust to correctly audit the current pro-white tendencies and come up with the "proper balance" of anti-white racist policies to counter-act it?

 

[cantata]

A couple of points:

1. Discrimination breeds resentment. All one is accomplishing is a faux-equality, while fostering resentment between whites and non-whites. That's hardly productive, though it looks attractive because it's a short-term "solution."
2. Are you really arguing that the proper response to discrimination is an eye for an eye?
3. Who shall we trust to correctly audit the current pro-white tendencies and come up with the "proper balance" of anti-white racist policies to counter-act it?

1. Why is it a faux-equality?

There are two broad problems that members of minorities face when they are seeking employment. The first problem is that they lack and have always lacked some privileges that other candidates enjoy, which in some cases will have led to them having had to have worked harder to achieve the same qualifications and experience. At the very least, therefore, it would be fairest and probably wisest, in a situation where two candidates are equally well-qualified, to select the minority candidate. To offer a reasonably uncontroversial example, if someone has been educated in an inner city state school and achieves the same grades as someone educated at a private, selective suburban school, the former individual will probably have had to overcome significant obstacles that the other individual never faced. As a consequence it seems likely that the former individual is the more able of the two.

The second problem that minority candidates face is constituted by the prejudices and preconceptions of the people responsible for hiring. If you do not force people to hire minority employees (or select candidates for university courses, or whatever), then however fair-minded those people may think they are, they will run with their prejudices. On CF people have frequently cited studies in which the same CV is headed by a male or female name, and it was discovered that employers rate the CV as more promising when it is a male name at the top. And it should come as no surprise that people’s prejudices extend beyond gender, to race, religion, sexual orientation, height, weight, age, able-bodiedness, class, &c. And before you say that such discrimination is illegal—try proving that it has taken place. How would a black candidate know whether she lost the position to a white candidate because of her race, and how would she prove it when the people doing the selection were oblivious to their own prejudices?

2. I am not suggesting that we introduce affirmative action in order to pay those white heterosexual middle-class &c. men back for their centuries of privilege. What I’m suggesting is that, frankly, I couldn’t care less if white heterosexual middle-class &c. men are put out that they no longer have unearned advantages over other people.

3. I have no idea. I don’t think that is, in itself, an argument against employing such strategies, though.

 

[Beanieboy]

I dislike hearing people in the media refer to Obama as the first black president. He's the first mixed race president and shouldn't just be labeled just black, in my opinion. I'm half black, half white and when someone refers to me as simply white or black, it's infuriating. Sure Barack is black, but why should his white side be totally overshadowed. He's equally both and should have a proper lable. It's just ridiculously annoying to me. I think his biracial ethnicity should be the focus more than him being 'black' as it shows a unity of race and represents our diverse nation.

I might be overeacting to this though; being too often mistaken for being only white and the accompanying flak.

But we didn't refer to the "white President Bush."

 

[DeathMagus]

1. Why is it a faux-equality?

Because both sides are not equal - rather, one side is disadvantaged, so a different set of disadvantages is being applied to the other side in an attempt at fairness.

There are two broad problems that members of minorities face when they are seeking employment. The first problem is that they lack and have always lacked some privileges that other candidates enjoy, which in some cases will have led to them having had to have worked harder to achieve the same qualifications and experience. At the very least, therefore, it would be fairest and probably wisest, in a situation where two candidates are equally well-qualified, to select the minority candidate. To offer a reasonably uncontroversial example, if someone has been educated in an inner city state school and achieves the same grades as someone educated at a private, selective suburban school, the former individual will probably have had to overcome significant obstacles that the other individual never faced. As a consequence it seems likely that the former individual is the more able of the two.

Is it fair to judge individuals based on racial statistics?

The second problem that minority candidates face is constituted by the prejudices and preconceptions of the people responsible for hiring. If you do not force people to hire minority employees (or select candidates for university courses, or whatever), then however fair-minded those people may think they are, they will run with their prejudices. On CF people have frequently cited studies in which the same CV is headed by a male or female name, and it was discovered that employers rate the CV as more promising when it is a male name at the top. And it should come as no surprise that people’s prejudices extend beyond gender, to race, religion, sexual orientation, height, weight, age, able-bodiedness, class, &c. And before you say that such discrimination is illegal—try proving that it has taken place. How would a black candidate know whether she lost the position to a white candidate because of her race, and how would she prove it when the people doing the selection were oblivious to their own prejudices?

If we cannot legally prove that racial discrimination is taking place in a certain instance, how can we legally justify the implementation of discriminatory steps clearly designed to counteract said discrimination in the same instance? Again, we'd be judging individuals based upon racial statistics (or sexual, or whatever the metric might be).

2. I am not suggesting that we introduce affirmative action in order to pay those white heterosexual middle-class &c. men back for their centuries of privilege. What I’m suggesting is that, frankly, I couldn’t care less if white heterosexual middle-class &c. men are put out that they no longer have unearned advantages over other people.

I don't mean to imply that you are being vindictive - simply that it is preferable when one man has his eye plucked out to help replace that eye - even if it's much harder than simply plucking out everyone else's eye.

3. I have no idea. I don’t think that is, in itself, an argument against employing such strategies, though.

If a leveling device cannot be fairly and reasonably applied, it loses all pragmatic value. If we can't come up with someone who is completely unbiased on this issue, then it's not a workable idea. Besides, the concept is inherently flawed anyway, as it's ridiculous to say that all black people, for instance, suffer the same hardships, or that all white people benefit from the same privileges. Someone's going to get disenfranchised on both sides, but now it's much harder to figure out who.

 

[cantata]

Because both sides are not equal - rather, one side is disadvantaged, so a different set of disadvantages is being applied to the other side in an attempt at fairness.

Is it fair to judge individuals based on racial statistics?

If both candidates have the same qualifications, what possible harm can there be in obliging employers to choose the minority candidate?

If we cannot legally prove that racial discrimination is taking place in a certain instance, how can we legally justify the implementation of discriminatory steps clearly designed to counteract said discrimination in the same instance? Again, we'd be judging individuals based upon racial statistics (or sexual, or whatever the metric might be).

Quite simply, because we know that such discrimination does take place.

The fact is that prejudiced employers judge individuals based on their ideas (often erroneous, of course) about racial statistics.

I don't mean to imply that you are being vindictive - simply that it is preferable when one man has his eye plucked out to help replace that eye - even if it's much harder than simply plucking out everyone else's eye.

I quite agree. But we do not have the means to replace the eye before the person with one eye has been dead for decades.

It is not a matter of removing eyes from others. It is a matter of taking away the night-vision goggles that they inherited from their parents to sell them so that we can pay for tools that will make our one-eyed person’s life easier.

If a leveling device cannot be fairly and reasonably applied, it loses all pragmatic value. If we can't come up with someone who is completely unbiased on this issue, then it's not a workable idea.

Well, for a start, no one is completely unbiased, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t apply a set of principles which produce fair results. Are juries or judges unbiased? No, of course not; they have opinions like everyone else. We still ask them to do those jobs in the hopes that they will leave their prejudices at the door.

Besides, the concept is inherently flawed anyway, as it's ridiculous to say that all black people, for instance, suffer the same hardships, or that all white people benefit from the same privileges. Someone's going to get disenfranchised on both sides, but now it's much harder to figure out who.

And the concept of magically fixing society so that no one is prejudiced and no one is at an unfair disadvantage is entirely workable, is it? Get real!

 

[DeathMagus]

If both candidates have the same qualifications, what possible harm can there be in obliging employers to choose the minority candidate?

Individuals hardly ever have exactly the same qualifications, so how much "value" does one assign to minority status? Additionally, we don't know the specific situation each candidate found themselves in. The minority could have come from a rich family and had to deal with very few of the issues put forth, while the white male could have had to overcome much adversity to earn his way to where he is. It's not fair to judge these people based on statistics.

Quite simply, because we know that such discrimination does take place.

The fact is that prejudiced employers judge individuals based on their ideas (often erroneous, of course) about racial statistics.

Yes, but if you cannot demonstrate it in a specific case, then restricting that employer is unfair and unreasonable in that case.

I quite agree. But we do not have the means to replace the eye before the person with one eye has been dead for decades.

That doesn't justify removing the eye from someone else who may have had no hand in the eye removal in the first place. It's essentially demanding reparations from innocent parties.

It is not a matter of removing eyes from others. It is a matter of taking away the night-vision goggles that they inherited from their parents to sell them so that we can pay for tools that will make our one-eyed person’s life easier.

So white males have privileges above and beyond what we would want for everyone? No. White males have what everyone should have.

Well, for a start, no one is completely unbiased, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t apply a set of principles which produce fair results. Are juries or judges unbiased? No, of course not; they have opinions like everyone else. We still ask them to do those jobs in the hopes that they will leave their prejudices at the door.

How do we determine what is a "fair" trade-off?

And the concept of magically fixing society so that no one is prejudiced and no one is at an unfair disadvantage is entirely workable, is it? Get real!

Would you say that we have made massive improvements over the last centuries?

 

[Bro_Sam]

When does "pride" become racist? It doesn't.

But a hint about where someone's head is at is when they think a memorial holiday for MLK means we can celebrate a "black" person of historical importance but not a "white" person of historical importance- apparently they somehow forget Lincoln's birthday and Washington's birthday.

Robert E. Lee's birthday falls close to MLK day so we celebrate Lee's birthday on MLK day.

 

[b&wpac4]

Robert E. Lee's birthday falls close to MLK day so we celebrate Lee's birthday on MLK day.

Lee takes a lot more heat than he really should. I mean, it took his family up until 1975 for the United States to grant him citizenship after the Civil War.

 

[Bro_Sam]

Lee takes a lot more heat than he really should. I mean, it took his family up until 1975 for the United States to grant him citizenship after the Civil War.

My grandmother's family were Lees from Virginia and I've always been told that we are related. I believe we have evidence in our family tree to suggest that we are, but then again, everybody in the South swears they're descended from Robert E. Lee so who knows?

In any event, Lee was a great American and we believe his life is far more worth celebrating that Martin Luther King's.

 

[b&wpac4]

In any event, Lee was a great American and we believe his life is far more worth celebrating that Martin Luther King's.

You go too far with that statement.

 

[Bro_Sam]

You go too far with that statement.

That's the wonderful thing about America: everybody's entitled to their own opinion.

 

[b&wpac4]

That's the wonderful thing about America: everybody's entitled to their own opinion.

Are you one of those, like my father, who believe King was a troublemaker that disrupted life and made things worse?

 

[Bro_Sam]

Are you one of those, like my father, who believe King was a troublemaker that disrupted life and made things worse?

No, I believe King was a well intentioned, but misguided individual who sought to make life better for all people.

I just don't think that makes him any better than any of the millions of other people who did the same thing.